The Obama Garb Flap

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Update [2008-2-25 13:36:24 by Big Tent Democrat]: There could be some clarification on this that may exonerate the Clinton campaign. I will await a further statement and see what it says. It is also worth noting that Daily Kos accepts that the Clinton Campaign had nothing to to do with this.

I think Josh Marshall gets it right on the Obama garb flap:

[W]e got [a] statement in which the Clinton camp says Obama should be "ashamed" at saying the picture is "divisive," without addressing one way or another what they're accused of doing. . . . Put it all together and the Clinton camp would appear to be unwilling to make even the most perfunctory denial that they are or were circulating this photo around.

We held up on this because we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything. But I think the Clinton camp's statement speaks for itself.

I think Josh is right here. And shame on the Clinton camp for pushing this photo out there.

[Update (TL): Comments now closed, there's a new thread on this.]

< Hillary to Supporters: She'll Ratchet Up the Experience Argument | The Obama Rules For Independent Expenditures >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That picture (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:58:46 AM EST
    was on a supermarket tabloid cover this weekend.  It's really weak tea so assume where it came from but that's SOP for the Obama campaign.

    At this point (none / 0) (#4)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    it is hard to argue that it did not come from the Clinton campaign since they were asked about it and instead of denying any involvement they attacked Obama for considering the act divisive.

    They distributed the photo.  Hard to argue otherwise at this point.


    It just seems like ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    any "mistake" Obama makes is somehow Clinton's fault, because her campaign points it out.

    He seems incapable of taking responsibility for anything.

    The photo isn't a lie.  It's an actual picture of him.  Was he under duress?  Did forget how cameras work?

    He should have just embraced the photo and moved on.

    But, btw, doesn't he know the lesson that politicians should avoid wearing "silly hats"?


    I have no problem (none / 0) (#25)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    with the picture.  I have a problem with Clinton trying to exploit it.

    I also don't care much for you calling the outfit a silly hat.  


    But again ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:17:03 PM EST
    was he forced to take this picture?  Did some court make it illegal to release such a picture?

    I have no problem with the picture.  I think he looks rather styling.

    He should just make a joke about it and move on.

    But smart politicians know to be careful about appearing in costumes.  This is a very old rule in politics.  It existed long before Barack or Hillary were born.


    How do you know (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Manuel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    HRC is trying to exploit this?  Do you think there was a meeting where she approved that message?  Isn't it more likely that Drudge is just trying to stir the pot?  It's an old trick.  If you are feeling charitable towards Drudge, isn't it equally as likely that an anti HRC person forwarded it to Drudge posing as pro HRC.  This could be the Obama campaign playing the "race baiting" meme again.  Or it could be the Republicans getting this out there while putting the blame on Clinton damaging both candidates.

    The Obama campaigns missed an opportunity to show unity by reflexively trying to pin this on HRC.

    I found Maggie William's statement eloquent and credible and a strong denial. Replying to the query is akin to replying to the question "Do you beat your kids?".


    If it was not meant to be public (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:24:49 PM EST
    but rather something he did to embrace his heritage, that Hillary supporters will now use to suggest that he is a Muslim terrorist....

    You really have no idea why the photo could be misinterpreted and how much effort it will take to correct any misimpression?....

    I used to say that if Hillary won fair and square I would vote for her (assuming no funny business with delegates, etc.)  Now, I just want to see this vicious stuff put to rest.....Hillary has no credibility on terrorism--she will use unreasoning fear for political gain--just like the Republicans....

    Willie Horton was first raised by a Democrat....

    This is really the last straw....


    So African garb=Willie Horton? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:25:38 PM EST
    Oh, Lordie, someone has issues and it's not me.

    The Republican response (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    to Willie Horton was that any inference made about race was purely the fault of the viewer and not based on anything intentional by the Bush campaign.

    It's called rationalizing reprehensible acts.  You seem to be doing a great job at it.


    do you think... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by myed2x on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:39:38 PM EST
    the rationalization is actually believed by the posters here?  I mean c'mon it seems hard to believe that almost no one is even willing to acknowledge the possibility of that photo being misinterpreted by people, or at the very minimum inserting a subliminal message to be suspect of OB....really, this amazes me.

    What's reprehensible? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    Did Obama not pose in those clothes for a photographer?

    Look, if you think he looks silly in the photo just admit it and move on. This fake outrage is really silly. Either that or you really do wonder about Obama's patriotism/heritage, etc.


    I've read that the BO camp is now (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    admitting that they don't know where the photo came from?  It's on mydd and somewhere else--I can try and find the link.  

    Obviously it would have been a very stupid move for the HRC camp to release this photo--not that I actually find anything wrong with it, as Maggie Williams points out.  

    Is there any proof it started with her camp?  And if it turns out she wasn't behind it, will that be reported widely too?

    Nothing wrong with that photo (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by sonya on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM EST
    He can't rely on his African roots to get black votes and then try to distance himself from them.  I'm tired of that crap from him.  

    A lot of people had that photo, not just the Clinton camp.


    well said. (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST
    If he doesn't like that photo to be public, don't take it.

    That photo first appeared in the National Examiner in February 2006.  I mean, come on.

    First, Obama and Chris Matthews were telling us that his biggest strength was being in Indonesia from age 4-10 (or something like that), and now he is running away from his own fri**g photo, and screaming Hillary... as usual.

    Get the smelling salts.  


    And the photo has been on this website (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:48:05 PM EST
    for some time now.


    With the caption of his visit.


    Widely Available Photo (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Athena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    The National Examiner has a national circulation of nearly 500,000 every week.  Likely Drudge himself gets it and that was his source - the Feb. 4, 2008 issue of the tabloid - on newstands all over America.

    The man who will UNIFY us gets punk'd by Drudge. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:52:27 PM EST

    I believe less and less that he can do this "unity" thing, and more and more that he'll fold like a cheap accordion when the Drudge / Cheney panzer division shoots at him full force. ("Total" Dick's already straddling the Rethuggernaut and aiming his big blunderbuss faceward. Obama crossing the aisle just saves them the trip.)

    Lock and load, ready aim fire: CLICK CLICK BOOM (to quote Saliva, the laff-inducing hard rock vomit band I had on my personal audio for two weeks.)

    How can Team Obama have missed the pattern? Have they been snoozing the past, gosh, decade and a half? Drudge "creates" the facts for higher media to "report", then higher echelon demons from the RNC feed them to Press the Meat and other media to make them spore on the airwaves.


    Hillary supporters are not denying (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    they are the ones who published it....

    If you can't grasp the image of a terrorist here that Hillary is trying to instill....


    That's your image (none / 0) (#58)
    by sonya on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    To me, a terrorist looks like Timothy McVeigh.

    Tim McVeigh (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    didn't gring down the twin towers....

    I see where you're coming from (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by sonya on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    Only people of color are terrorists in your eyes.  

    What absurd nonsense (none / 0) (#207)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Do you really think that we do not face a threat from Al Qaeda?

    Are you saying that Obama chose to (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:15 PM EST
    dress like a terrorist when he was abroad?! Hmmm..
    Please think through what  you're saying.

    So now Hillary campaign has published it? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    Doesn't that go even beyond what was originally alleged?

    You find nothing wrong with it? (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    What would be the reason for the Clinton campaign to distribute this photo?  I really would like to know.

    It's a funny picture.. so what? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    You think the Obama campaign doesn't do similar things? Of course they do---and worse.

    What's funny about it? (none / 0) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    I would like to know.

    Barack Osama Bin Laden (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    is really funny to Hillary supporters.....The Republicans just said, thank you....



    The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    I know those Republicans. They ware way too stoopid to think of anything like this, eh?

    So, let's have Hillary (none / 0) (#205)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    do all the dirty Republican-type stuff first?  It will be good for Obama, toughen him up.....You know, it would have been good for Edwards in 2004 to have started the swift boat stuff....It would have really helped Kerry.  

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    You know I don't think this is the end of the world or that Hillary is some evil doer because of this.  

    But it amazes me how people can call a picture linking to an ad from 15 years ago shameless and disgusting but Hillary distributing a photo of Obama in African garb is completely acceptable. Sure they can't come up with a reason why it is acceptable, but it is none the less.


    Again: (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:21:05 PM EST
    What is wrong with the photo?

    Why does this offend you?

    Why does the Obama camp try to simultaneously embrace and run from the candidate's background?

    Could this point to an insecurity on the part of his supporters rather than anything else?


    Yes, it does concern (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    me...because it can be so easily misinterpreted by those who don't pay a lot of attention to the campaign but who do vote....

    It will take time and effort to explain he is not in fact a Muslim, or at all sympathetic to Bin Laden....A photo is worth a thousand words, and that is what it may take....

    You guys don't really care if she wins dirty, do you?



    Well Drudge (none / 0) (#19)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    says he got his copy from Clinton staffers.  Others may have it but they're the ones speading it around.  I don't think anyone will be able to say Obama's not able to stand up to the Republicans once he's been through the Clinton machine.

    You think that photo is something (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    Obama needs to defend himself from???

    Has he named names? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    Cause I don't exactly consider Drudge a credible source.

    They didn't (1.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    deny it.  

    I'm totally with the Clinton camp here (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    An unsubstantiated report from Drudge doesn't  merit a response.
    Also, Obama's quickness to seize on this shows how anxious he is to avoid talking about the issues.

    Their non-denial speaks loudly (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    why? (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07:58 PM EST
    First why is the Obama camp so eager to pin this on the Clinton Camp

    secondly why is a non-response taken as some kind of guilt

    thirdly if it was in tabloid then think of the different other sources first.

    I'll wait before I pass judgement.


    It is not (none / 0) (#40)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    Obama pinning this on Clinton.  Drudge reported the photo was being circulated by Clinton staffers.  Wisdom prevails with not accepting Drudge's report but the Clinton campaign did not refute the veracity of the report at all with Maggie William's statement to Politico.  

    If the Clinton staff are not responsible the statement should have been a straightforward denial of any involvement.  


    Not really ... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    because the term "Clinton campaign released" could be seen as true if any Democrat who at any time had had any involvement with the Clintons was in anyway connected to anything that could be seen as distribution of this photo.

    And you know that's true.


    Come on. (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    Do you beat your wife??

    Why is this story have to become about Hillary?? Why?

    Obama took a picture.  It appeared in the National Examiner in February 2006.  He was supposed to be the candidate with international appeal, remember??

    He is just running away from his own fri**ng photo.  I mean, come on.  Presidents, First Ladies, and Senators wear the regional dress all the time.

    They just want an excuse to scream, Hillary.  It always works best for them.  Just when everyone was going to finally talk about health care and trade, they throw a fake outrage.  

    So tomorrow's debate wouldn't be about his health care mailer, it would be about this stupid photo.  Further, like his middle name or stuff in his book, it will be said in the lowest of whispers, "Senator Clinton, were you responsible for the photo which we cannot show?", and people use their imagination and coming up with wild stuff.

    Bottom line: if he didn't want people to see him in a traditional dress, he shouldn't have taken that photo. period.  

    I am frankly tired of their fake outrages.  

    Have you thought that Obama camp may have been the ones giving it to Drudge, so they can throw a temper tantrum?


    Not to me. The photo is a non-issue (none / 0) (#17)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST

    BTD: should HRC's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    state it had nothing to do with Farrakhan's making the statement he did to 20,000 people?

    LOL.. I just said about the same thing (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    over at Orange Obama, and got roundly booed.

    Has anyone tied (none / 0) (#47)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:15:47 PM EST
    the Clinton campaign to Farrakhan's endorsement?  If not, then they have no reason to make a statement.  And I fail to see what one has to do with the other.

    Not yet. (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    I've seen that photo before (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:08:45 PM EST
    so how can it be called just out there now? (There are a lot of photos "out there" on both Obamas -- showing her makeover, for example -- and found just by googling images.)

    Breaking News (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    Matt Drudge is now the officially sanctioned news source for Obama supporters.  Because he's always honest and never wrong.  Please ...

    You can keep saying this (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    but Drudge's claims have nothing to do with this.  The Clinton staff had a chance to deny involvement.  They did not.  

    Why of course they don't (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    whine whine whine ...

    Obama and his supporters need to decide (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    Why is the hallmark of the Obama campaign trying to have it both ways all the time, i.e., celebrating his lineage while at the same time running from it?

    Either the photo is potentially damaging, or it's not. Which is it?

    Why is this considered such an embarrassing photo if there's nothing to be embarrassed about?

    What lineage? (none / 0) (#90)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    Obama's father is Kenyan.  That photo is of Somali dress.  Kenya and Somalia are different countries.

    They are not both in Africa? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM EST
    Georgia and California are on opposite coasts, but both are American states, i.e., of American heritage.

    So I guess (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:34:03 PM EST
    you also consider yourself Mexican?

    This may news to you but Africa is not a single nation.


    Kenya and Somalia are different COUNTRIES (none / 0) (#151)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:40:08 PM EST
    And Africa is not a country, in case you were ignorant about that as well.

    To be somewhat more fair. (none / 0) (#210)
    by liminal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    Very few African borders follow cultural lines.  Generally, the borders of African states today were set by colonial powers in the late 19th and early 20th century, as they were dividing up the continent, and Somalia and Kenya border each other.  I'm not really familiar with the cultural groups in Kenya and Somalia, so I can't say anything further on that - I just wanted to say that COUNTRY does not define culture in Africa.  That's true everywhere (hello Basque region!) to some degree or another, but is especially true in Africa.

    That said, I do agree with your larger point.


    What Evidence It Was Authorized by Campaign? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    Unless, of course, I'm supposed to take Josh Marshall's word for it.  Hmm, funny, but I think he used to do some sort of reporting or something before making such pronouncements (although perhaps he did and you didn't quote it, I no longer give TPM hits).

    Now, maybe it came from someone in her campaign, but the campaign has not admitted that it did, it has only said it cannot be sure because of how many people are involved in the campaign.  

    Now, a cynic, might suggest that perhaps this photo is being used by the Obama campaign to once again try to tar the Clinton camp as racist on the day when she's giving a big foreign policy speech and distract from her speech.  The photo may have come from someone associated with the Clinton campaign, but I find it difficult to believe the person did so with approval from the campaign, it makes no sense for the Clinton campaign to push this out today of all days.    

    Marshall has been... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    playing by the Clinton Rules lately. Like with Schuster, the Clinton camp wants to get some leverage on MSNBC for their sexist and biased reporting, so they speak vaguely about the punishment that Schuster should receive.

    Two weeks later, Schuster is back on the air and Hillary is on an MSNBC debate. Does he provide any final thoughts or reporting on what transpired, what Clinton was really after? No, he leaves out there the impression that TPM defended the honor and sanctity and untouchableness of journalists against a censorious politicians. Clinton Rules.


    I really think Obama's reaction to the photo makes (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    it a bigger deal than it really is...He acts ashamed of it and that isnt good....

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:30:01 PM EST
    And this is the second time he's done this - he's done it with the Muslim smear as well.  It's not enough to simply say it isn't true, he has to basically agree that it's a smear to call him a Muslim and tout his Christian calling like he's fricking Bush.

    Now, I'm not naive, I know how the GOP, in particular, will try to use this photo and the false Muslim smear against Obama.  But it does bother me that on these issues, as with so many others, Obama accepts the GOP framing - that to be labeled a Muslim is a smear, to show him in traditional garb (which has a very long tradition by American politicians) is a smear.  

    I thought he was brilliant in fighting back against the flag lapel pin, trying to actually change the framing of the debate instead of just accepting it.  Here, he accepts it.  It would've been just as effective and much better for the country, IMO, if he'd simply released a series of photos of other politicians, including the Clintons, in various countries' attire.  But that, of course, would've meant he couldn't try to continue to paint Hillary Clinton as a racist (and, the cynic in me also can't help but note that this entire thing comes after Hillary, but not Obama, attended the big African American summit in Louisiana).

    And, yes, of course, he wants to have it both ways.  But who doesn't?  I don't blame him for that, he's a politician after all.


    Really? (none / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    Do you have a quote from Obama on this matter?

    His supporters are clearly terrified (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    of this angle of "attack," for lack of a better description.

    Witness the hysteria anytime you mention the man's middle name.

    They clearly think his lineage is his Achilles' Heel. Sad, really.


    The fri**ing irony is this: (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:55:31 PM EST
    That Obama's camp and Chris Matthews tell you he is a tranformational figure and can singlehandedly bring a new Era to US foreign policy because of who he is.

    Now, they are fainting and taking their smelling salts out over Obama in a traditional dress.

    Yeah, I know.  IRONY is dead and buried.  


    wrong (none / 0) (#199)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    the alleged anger stems from the who circulated it (allegedly clinton's camp) and the why someone may be circulating it (to stoke fear in the hearts of red blooded TXans and OHians) not the what (a picture of OHB overseas dressed "funny", since HRC's followers seem to think it's so hilarious).

    Yup (none / 0) (#178)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    Not responding quickly to swiftboating didn't work out so well for the Ds last time around, did it?  Gee, wonder why the BHO campaign might be sensitive to cheap shots this election season . . .

    Why jump to the conclusion that he's ashamed (none / 0) (#97)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    perhaps he just sees it as a cheap trick designed to make moderate dems in the liberal bastions of TX and OH wonder if B. Hussein O. is the manchurian candidate the MSM and GOP are wailing about.  Nothing takes place in a vacuum, the timing of this release is rather suspect, and this "hit" is rather low.  

    Right ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    he should have just made light of it and moved on.

    He's making it seem bad, and by connection reflecting that he had poor judgment in posing in the costume.

    He's not inspiring confidence in his chances against the Republicans with this reaction.


    Poor judgment? (none / 0) (#136)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    That's what diplomats do when they visit foreign countries.  It can be viewed as bad manners not to participate.  HRC knows this.  She's got some interesting photos as well, but no middle name or foreign born parent to "confuse" the issue.

    You and the Obama ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    campaign are making it into a big deal.  It's the Obama campaign itself that's making it look like poor judgment. Because he's making it look like some kind of negative.

    But, again, it's an old rule in politics to avoid "silly hats."

    If you ever see a politician handed some "questionable headgear" they'll often sort of hold it over their head, rather than actually putting it on.

    But, again, it's not a big deal.  Obama should use his sense of humor on this one, and move on.


    Silly hats in the US v. garb in foreign countries (none / 0) (#173)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    not much of a comparison there.  when in rome and all . . .

    "Silly hats" is a ... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    term in politics.  It's been around since they've had cameras.

    I wasn't commenting on the silly hats part (none / 0) (#213)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:09:17 PM EST
    just the difference between what a US politician does at home (re: silly hats, signs whatever) and what they do on official business abroad.  Obviously, getting dressed up takes a little more time and involvement than being handed a "silly hat."  

    Oh pooh (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:23:08 PM EST
    I would not have seen the pic if all the pro Obama people did not plaster it everywhere.  Josh makes the leap that the HRC campaign did it cause they did not deny something that Drudge alleges.  Case closed.  Josh, no need to leap and make this front page, what about the Ferraro editorial in the NYTimes talking about the Superdelegates, now that is an issue.  

    c'mon (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ajain on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    Obviously the Clinton camp did push this photo, but its not like Hillary doesnt have any photos where she is wearing local traditional clothing. Those pictures have been widely publicized.

    I see nothing wrong with this. I don't know why the Obama camp is so over-hyped about this. Plus, if this is something to worry about, then better sooner rather than later.

    p.s.-anyone else think that Jon Stewart broadcasted BO's full name last night so that everyone knows whatever there is to know now, instead of regretting it later?

    What's wrong with the photo? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM EST

    The problem (none / 0) (#138)
    by Claw on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    The photo is harmless in and of itself but if it is being used by HRC as some sort of Fox News fear mongering, it's reprehensible.  It's the same as Fox News calling Obama a Muslim; nothing wrong with being a Muslim and, absent their obvious agenda, a harmless mistake.  
    That's why it would be a problem for the HRC campaign...I don't think they're distributing the picture because they think he looks great in native Kenyan garb.  Do you?

    I think that Drudge is playing us (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:46:23 PM EST
    This is my take on the story from what I've read here.

    1.  He obtained an email from a Clinton staffer saying that the press has a double standard when it comes to the campaigns. This photo is attached.

    2.  He publishes this photo along with saying he "Obtained" the email.  Not saying that they published it.

    3.  He makes a bowl of popcorn and watches the Dems attack each other thinking what great theater it is.


    I find it amusing how Drudge can make (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    so many people who claim to not believe him, believe him.   So if Drudge says it comes from the Clinton Camp it comes from the Clinton Camp?  To me it seems to many people are a bit too eager to attack the Clinton camp without stopping to think that this may be Drudge's way of creating more problems for Hillary.  After we all know he loves Hillary right.

    It would be very easy (none / 0) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    for the Clinton campaign to resolve this.  They could have simply said "we had nothing to do with this and if some low level staffer did it, it was without our permission.".

    Instead they got defensive and argued why it was A-Ok for them to send out the photo, without actually admitting they did.  

    The fact that they won't admit it makes it very clear they know what the intended impact they are going for is.


    There may be a statement coming saying that (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    I sure hope so (1.00 / 0) (#170)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    it appears the Clinton campaign may be in its Ghost-Dance phase, which would make the next few weeks quite ugly.

    This is true (none / 0) (#153)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    And if they do I will accept that.  However, I would question the judgment of defending the action in the first place.

    You saw my post (none / 0) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    so you know that is my view.

    Yessir (none / 0) (#182)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    I do.

    I think you better go and read what they said (none / 0) (#155)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    what they said was that it was ok for him to have taken the picture in Local Garb.  Many politicians have done it before including Hillary.

    I don't like Drudge (none / 0) (#123)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:32:56 PM EST
    but I don't know of a specific example of him lying about a source.

    I guess you haven't read him enough (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    He has had to pull articles and quotes off his site many a times.

    Ditto that (none / 0) (#125)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    In the blogosphere now, Drudge has more credibility than the Clintons. All the King's Men....

    You are a true Democrat (none / 0) (#131)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    The reporting on this is highly suspect (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    First, it is said to come from an email. What actual reach does an email have? The Clinton's certainly did not send that to their supporters, I did not get that.

    Second, And the smear? If it was a smear, then why are there no quotes from the email attached to the image? An image like that is not necessarily accompanied by a smear.

    In fact, there does seem to be a rather quick assumption by Josh Marshall and others that the image per se is a smear against Obama, and that means that he and others see Muslim garb itself as a smear.

    The key word here is the use of "shameful" by the Obama camp, they want to turn the tables back on Clinton after Saturday. Nothing but politics and Obama-blog noise machine.

    This picture (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    The National Examiner ran this photo in their Feb. 4th edition magazine.
    Note that the Drudge Report did NOT say that the Clinton campaign  was trying to pass this photo out to the media.  It said that it had OBTAINED an e-mail of a staffer, not RECEIVED an e-mail of a staffer.  There is a big difference here.  The e-mail they OBTAINED said "Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" I can quite imagine that one staffer to another could be complaining that something like this of Clinton would not be overlooked by the news media.
    This is the DRUDGE REPORT folks!

    Well this is quite different.... (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:39:28 PM EST
    ...than the notion that is going around that the Clinton campaign is circulating this picture to the media.

    Which media? (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    What other media is claiming that the Clinton staffers are spreading this?  Other than the reference to the Drudge Report?
    Have you seen any other traditional media bring this up?

    Is the photo real? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    I think that the issue of whether it came from the Clinton camp or some supporter of Clinton is irrelevant if the photo is real.  Is Obama ashamed that he wore the garb?  It's all nonsense.

    The photo ... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    is real.

    Why is he so upset? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by xjt on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    Nobody forced him to put on traditional garb and have a photo taken. What about a photo of himself in traditional garb is so upsetting to him? And if so, why did he pose for this photo two years ago? Was it taken without his consent?

    I am very tired of the Obama camp thinking that everyone should take care of them and make it all nice for them. If this upsets him, then he is completely unprepared for Republican attacks. If he cannot stand the heat, then he should drop out of the race.

    If indeed the Clinton camp circulated this photo--which apparently has been available for quite some time, then they should be thanked. Yes, thanked. It's better for Obama to deal with it now than to deal with it next October.

    Ahh the best rationalization yet (none / 0) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    Obama should thank the Clinton campaign for an attempted smear.  

    Indeed they should be very grateful that Hillary is willing to play the role of Republican operative.


    So What? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:35:57 PM EST
    I just don't care.

    If there's a photo of Obama having sex with satan out there I hope they push it simply because I know the Obama camp would have done so if they were in the position in to do so.

    I know you are trying to be objective and do what's right for the party, but that's not what it's about anymore.

    So what?

    This smacks of Republican smears (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:36:23 PM EST
    because they can release a photo that they believe is harmful to Obamas campaign at the same time blaming Hillary for releasing it....A total win win for them....

    Ahh (none / 0) (#144)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    So the Obama campaign set this whole thing up.

    Truly they are the masters of evil.


    No I believe he's saying that.... (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    ...it's a Republican trick that can smear both candidates. A twofer. Given that the source is Drudge, its something worth considering.

    Um, I think she's saying Rove did it. (none / 0) (#198)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    And you know, she may be on to something... [/sarcasm]

    Are we serious? (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by jackfkntwist on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:37:27 PM EST
    Okay, what I don't understand is why DRUDGE has become a serious and honest news site, quoting "clinton staffers." Maybe they should release the information before everyone starts pointing fingers. I don't quite understand this situation and why it is such a big deal? All it does is re-confirm the bias and lies about Clinton for Obama supporters, after a very pro Hillary weekend. Yes, because Drudge has no hand in trying to take down the Democrats. Riight.

    Clinton's Drudge "Connection" (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    Via Marc Ambinder,

    I asked Tracy Sefl, the Clinton adviser who was outed a few months back as an informal conduit between the Clinton campaign and Matt Drudge, whether she had anything to do with the photo's journey to Drudge's e-mail inbox.

    "No," she said.

    Please edit the title. (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST

    well I guess I better move to another bloq (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    I was glad to find a bloq that was well conducted and fair.  But the eagerness I find in this thread to jump into the Anti-Hillary band-wagon makes me think I may have been wrong.  I have met some very intelligent and thoughtful people in this bloq and have had many an intelligent discussion on various subjects.  But as Registered Republican who will be voting for the Democratic Nominee no matter which one it is I refuse to sit here and watch Democrats attack either candidate on the word of a poster(Drudge) who I give as much credibility as I do to Rush  Limbaugh or Bill O'riley.  No offense but even if the e-mail came from someone in the Clinton camp the eagerness some have shown to blame them before all the facts are out shows in my opinion the same irrationality that I found in the right wing bloqs and places like Huffpost.  

    As they say in my country Que Dios los Bendiga y La Virgen los Acompane.

    Better wait for BTD's possible second (none / 0) (#202)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    update (with amended title).  

    It's not BTD I'm talking about (none / 0) (#209)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    I Just Now Realized BTD is a hypocrite too!! (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    I notice that BTD has been very harsh on the media and other bloggers for their negativity but has said that Obama himself and the Obama campaig is just "Trying to win an election," as if embracing that negativity is somehow right if you're just trying to win an election.

    Even if the Clinton camp pushed this, apparently BTD is going to blame Clinton and her campaign directly.

    Apparently BTD isn't going to let them off the hook for "just trying to win an election," the same way he lets Obama off the hook for "just trying to win an election."

    The stink is on you, BTD.

    It's there.

    Take care.

    For the record- this is a non-issue (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by cmugirl on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    Statement by Maggie Williams, Campaign Manager


    "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

    "This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

    "We will not be distracted."

    Premature, Hyperbolic title (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:09:37 PM EST
    Shame on you BTD for eating this up!  You are more discerning than this.

    The Clinton response may lack a denial simply because they don't want to lock themselves into a position to always have to answer to Drudge's nonsense in the future.

    "Matt Drudge rules our world" (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by kmblue on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    A quote from Mark Halperin and John Harris, now of Politico.

    Fair is fair (5.00 / 0) (#218)
    by Sunshine on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    Why are there so many things that are unfair to publish about Obama, we can't talk about his church, we can't talk about his Islamic past, we can't talk about any drug use, we can't use the words "a roll of the dice", we can't say that his misleading stand on the war is a fairy-tale, we can't say that Louis Farrakhan is supporting him, we can't show that a picture he allowed to be made..  Yet, there is nothing that is not fair when you're talking about Hillary..  This is like when you're up to bat, you find out the referee is the pitcher's mother..

    Clinton's campaign to the Drudge photo (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    I think the Clinton camp correctly pointed to HRC is not ashamed of the many photos showing her with traditional garbs from many nations.  HRC's camp is saying that they will not be distracted.  Obama should also be equally proud and stop believing that Americans will look at him differently for wearing the garb.

    Hillary supporters are outraged (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:19:33 PM EST
    at the Harry & Loiuse photo on the Obama mailer....because of the image it conjures up

    But they feign ignorance at the image of the Obama photo....  

    Good rule of thumb: If it's on Drudge, it's not (5.00 / 0) (#224)
    by jawbone on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    from a regular Democratic source. Just something to think about, OK?

    And, lately during the primary, TPM has been jumping to conclusions about the Clinton campaign that tend to undermine their credibility as a source of dependable reporting.

    Which is a shame, since Josh and his crew did such good work on the USAG firings scandals and, early on, about FISA.  Given how he's jumped the gun on a couple high profile things about Hillary, I must now be more skeptical about all his reporting.

    Drat. It was such a dependable source--I thought.

    I truly hope he hasn't jumped the shark in jumping to conclusions....

    Now, I found in my meanderings that Maggie Williams said she's been receivng emails about this photo apparently originating among rightwads--but, of course, it had to be Hillary's campaign sending it to Drudge?  They wouldn't have used a cut out?????

    OK. Enough. Just do not trust Drudge.

    Comments now closed (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:29:35 PM EST
    and in light of the Clinton camp's denial, I deleted the "Shame on Clinton Camp" from the title but not the body of Big Tent's post.

    It would seem (none / 0) (#1)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    that there has been a marked shift in strategy by the Clinton campaign.  It appears to me that they are going back to a pre-South Carolina strategy of attacking Obama.  

    I wonder if the Texas debate was seen as a loss by the Clinton team and forced a shake up.  To go from kumbyaa at the debate to full attack dog mode in 2 days is rather striking.  

    Hillary won the debate (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    on points but lost overall.  Obama looked and sounded like a Commander-in-Chief (after all the commentary that he was an empty suit and his supporters loons, Hillary had made the bar quite low), and Hillary's last answer made her look like she expected to lose....

    Now, she is out there with all kinds of over-the-top stuff  (trying to shore up support among her own supporters)....Now, a photo to make Obama look like Bin Laden.

    Desperate--and who knows, it might work.....

    In some ways, Obama would personally be better off if Hillary beats him by suggesting he is Muslim and a Bin Laden supporter....She would lose the general election, and then, finally, we would be rid of this divisive, attack-style politics......Obama would be set in 2012 to take on McCain....But the country in the meantime.



    I hope not (none / 0) (#77)
    by vj on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST
    because it is a stupid strategy.

    It is a stupid strategy (1.00 / 0) (#101)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    and thus like all the other strategies the Clinton campaign has tried out.

    Please describe the photo as (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:58:42 AM EST
    the link is blocked here. Thanks.

    Obama is wearing traditional Somali garb (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:01:44 PM EST
    making him look like Osama bin Laden.

    It is inflammatory.


    I found it, (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM EST
    thanks to Huff Po, natch.  Until I read the caption I thought he was playing the part of a female in a skit!

    Then he shouldn't have put it on (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    in the first place.

    But he only decided to run for (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    President in 07.

    So what shall we do? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:22:48 PM EST
    Give him the White House as compensation?

    I don't get it.

    And I don't get why his supporters are so outraged by Obama's lineage if they think there's nothing wrong with it.

    Obviously they do think something's wrong with it. That's not my problem.


    His lineage is Kenyan, not Somali (none / 0) (#108)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    Do they all look the same to you?

    Hah, good try, the race card again (none / 0) (#139)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    Not gonna take the bait, sorry, I've spent too much time at Daily Kos to fall for that again.

    So Big Tent Dem (none / 0) (#121)
    by myed2x on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    You see what's happened here at TL? Blind partisan support, combined with complete intransigence and a skewed view of reality...so let me say it for you all....nothing to see here move along.

    Yah right, what I'm seeing isn't too encouraging.


    Who's supporting anyone? (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    Most of us are just saying if there's nothing to be embarrassed about, why complain about the photo?

    That's just common sense. If you're not worried about its effect on Obama, then move on. If you're worried, you need to rethink why you're supporting a candidate who you apparently think has such a huge vulnerability.


    The photo (none / 0) (#14)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    is shown in Politico's article.  

    If staffers engaged in circulating this photo without the approval of Hillary, they should be fired asap.  If Hillary approved of allowing this to be done on her behalf, I will no longer consider her an appropriate candidate for the Democratic nomination.  


    True but perhaps they need time... (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    ...to find out if any staffers did it. I'm not going to necessarily blame them for being cautious at this point.

    Then we either (none / 0) (#112)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    have another example of how terribly served Hillary has been by her campaign staff by responding with a non-denial before getting the facts or they are unable to deny it because it is true.

    why should they have to deny any thing (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33:00 PM EST
    coming from Drudge.  Oh, I'm sorry, I guess he is now a trusted source for Democrats.

    Don't know if I'd go that far. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Chimster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    Switching to a diofferent candidate because of this seems like an overly righteous knee-jerk reaction. The Obama campaign copuld easily come up with one of these type leaks in the near future. Would you switch back to Hillary then? If you were truly on the fence, then nevermind.

    I'm not talking about (none / 0) (#104)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    switching candidates.  I am looking at what I consider to be a threshold of what is acceptable for a candidate to do in order to win an election.  I don't care that you consider that an "overly righteous knee-jerk reaction."  I consider it a tactic that is not worthy of my vote or support, period.  

    Reluctantly Agreed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Chimster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM EST

    I'm still holding on to the hope that Clinton's campaign will have a pretty good reason for doing this. Being a Clinton supporter, I'm somewhat shocked and disappointed. This does not seem like something they would do. I know others would say this is EXACTLY the type thing they would do, but something's not right about this. Did Clinton's campaign say that they are responsible for this?

    Why are you so willing to accept (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by Manuel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    that Hillary is resposible?  It could have been Drudge.  It could have been a republican.  It could have been someone in the Obama campaign.  It could have been someone in the Clinton campaign acting without approval.  If the latter, this would take time to track down which explains the current denial.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#9)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:03:42 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign does not know the origin of the photo. Until they know the source, it would be dangerous to deny it came from a low level staffer.

    Just what exactly does "circulated to Drudge" mean?

    There are ways of denying it (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    "No one in the Clinton camp directed the release of the photo."

    Josh is right here.


    Good point (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    But, they would have to qualify that to the leadership, not the whole camp of paid staffers, which is what I am thinking.

    Second point, though, on circulation, where does this appear on the Internet or in the news or in the Ohio and Texas contests before it appears on Drudge?

    There was no word of this until today, it seems like a good counterpunch to Hillary's Saturday shame speech... As a cynic, the timing seems fortuitous for Obama...


    Dangerous to deny involvement (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by muffie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    unless you're sure you're correct.  A far from perfect response, but better than what John Marshall quotes:

    A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, denied knowledge of whether someone on the campaign circulated that image of Obama in Somali garb [...]

    "We have over 700 people on staff. I don't know if someone on our staff sent it out or not," Elleithee said. "If someone on our staff makes the point that we are treated differently by the press than Sen. Obama, we agree with that sentiment. We don't think there's anything wrong with this photo. Sen. Clinton has herself, while traveling abroad, dressed in traditional, local dress. And there's nothing divisive about that."

    which is at least (very) vaguely suggests it's not an organized smear campaign.  I'll withhold judgement for now, and hope it's just an individual staffer acting on his/her own.

    If you believe in came from the Clinton (none / 0) (#115)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    campaign and up to now I see no reason to believe it did.

    Maggie Williams's response (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33:45 PM EST
    tells me all I need to know....She bascially says, what's wrong with the photo?....Hillary people think it is funny.

    Not good enough (none / 0) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:40:17 PM EST
    And then if some janitor in topeka (none / 0) (#60)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    turns out to have sent it, they'll be called liars.
    Denial is a no-win situation.
    In fact, since this photo just appeared on a tabloid cover, it's quite likely someone from Clinton's camp emailed it. Actually, I would bet that some of Obama's people forwarded it also, since it's interesting.

    I'm thinking grandma in Kenya (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    thought it would help Obama.

    Actually that is a brilliant idea: (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    Why not get grandma's comment  on Obama's outrage at being seen in traditional clothes?

    Grandma knows Obama (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:31:14 PM EST
    isn't Bin Laden.....Many low information voters won't....And, that is precisely what Hillary wants--confusion......It is the worst kind of slime.....It is the implied suggestion that Obama is a Muslim terrorist.....

    And, if it were a Hillary supporter conning grandma into releasing the photo....I will work very, very hard to defeat Hillary.  Money, time whatever....even in the general...

    She has been so over the top with her anger and sarcasm, it is clear she has decided to go nuclear.....


    Your comment is over the top--- (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    Hillary is not. The photo was  on a magazine cover already.

    If I wanted to make sure it looked (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    like Bin Laden, I would photo shop in a background of a cave interior.

    I guess the BHO campaign (none / 0) (#11)
    by JohnS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    wiil now think twice about putting out another Harry and Louise-style mailer directed at the HRC campaign. This was a much better response than the wimpy, "shame on you..."

    One does not excuse the other (none / 0) (#22)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST
    Obama was wrong, in my opinion, to use the Harry & Louise style mailer.  But this is not a tit for tat situation where one bad move is deserving of another.  I expect any candidate to be above attempting to stoke the fears of bigots as a way to win a nomination.  

    I disagree (none / 0) (#82)
    by JohnS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    I think the message back is an effective shot across the bow.

    And I disagree that the picture stokes the fears of bigots.  They don't need the clothes for that.


    Why is it effective (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    unless it stokes the fear of bigots?....How is it better than saying "shame on you" if it is just a meaningless photo?  

    No (none / 0) (#146)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    this is not an effective shot across the bow.  This is a below the belt shot that will hurt Hillary with Democrats much more than it will Obama.  And there is a difference between acknowledging the fear that already exists and taking actions to promote those fears.  

    This is just as unacceptable as any race baiting or sexism that has been a part of the campaigns.  I see no reason to defend this unless the Clinton campaign can prove they played no role in circulating this to the press.  


    Yes, indeed (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST
    Hillary will stop at nothing to get elected.....I do believe that.....

    Looks like the gloves are off (none / 0) (#15)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    Yeah, I think she's beginning to realize that fairness is not a virtue of this campaign season. In it to win it. I think a lot of her supporters are glad she's eschewing the 'let's all just get along' philosophy just as Obama did earlier.

    I believe Hillary is the better candidate, and would be the better leader. She's been the target of MANY unscupulous attacks in the past few months, and so while I'd be sad to see her lower herself to win, I think she's got more than a few 'get out of jail free' cards collected along the way to offset the gotchas she's probably going to unload.

    Mark Penn is still a dogbag, imo.

    Put the gloves back on and fight (none / 0) (#68)
    by exLurker on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter, but have always admired Hillary Clinton, but not currently (probably will admire her again when this is all over).

    This has Mark Penn's fingerprints all over it, but ultimately the buck should stop at the top.

    I understand it must be tough to run against someone like Obama (fresh appeal, positive message, fawning media), but there are certain lines you shouldn't cross. And I think this is one.

    The thing is she didn't have to go this way. She was winning me over when she seemed gracious and treated Obama with professional respect.  But the behavior this weekend was really peculiar to me and ultimately pushed me away.  She mocked Obama and she mocked me (supporter).

    If she wins, I'll vote for her, but I don't have to like it.


    The gloves are off (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    Indeed.....And her supporters here are cheering her on.  Do whatever it takes, politics ain't bean-bag...Do unto them before they do it unto you....

    I am finished with Hillary--I will never, ever support her...Not even in the general.....I will fight against her in the general if need be....


    Why is Obama still attcking Hillary? (4.00 / 0) (#223)
    by Manuel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    Did you see her in the Texas debate?  Did you see her in the State of the Black Union?  So far, she has been far more eloquent and clear than BO on party unity.  You'll be glad to have her campaigning for democrats in the fall

    BO failed to follow her lead and instead is going for the kill in OH and TX with attack mailers.  Not that I blame him.  It is politics after all.  However he put her in a position where she has to fight back for her supporters and her staffers.

    BO will have work to do to unite the party if he is the nominee.  So far all he has told me is that he is taking my vote for granted.


    For all of you (none / 0) (#30)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    people that see nothing wrong with the Clinton campaign trying to make political hay out of this photo.  Don't EVER complain about unfair attacks on Hillary again.  Clearly you have no problem with cheap shots as long as Hillary is the one taking the shot.

    I trust you will keep us in line. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    Again assuming that the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    did this.  It was in Drudge guess who he root for

    Sorry, this issue is so trivial that (none / 0) (#36)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    I can't take any of the complaints seriously.

    Yeah I'm sure (none / 0) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:14:00 PM EST
    you don't take it seriously.  It doesn't offend Hillary so clearly there is nothing wrong it.

    Why are you offended by a picture of (none / 0) (#46)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    Obama in some kind of native dress?

    Why does the photo offend? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:16:10 PM EST
    Does it not celebrate Obama's lineage, the advantages of which I have been lectured about time and again by his supporters?

    Why do you find the photo embarrassing? Please be specific.


    Don't be obtuse (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    I will ask this again.  What reason would the Clinton campaign have to distribute this photo?

    I find nothing embarrassing about the photo.  I find it reasonably offensive that Hillary is willing to feed into the Barack as Crypto-Muslim narrative.  

    Apparently you're ok with that.  


    If you're not embarrassed (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    then you shouldn't be in such a high dudgeon over this.

    Either you're actually embarrassed by the photo and are lying about it, or you are faking outrage for political points.



    All this crying 'foul' (none / 0) (#117)
    by JohnS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    over this photo is as pathetic as "shame on you" was. This is how grownups play the political game. As in, mess with me and I'll mess with you back. Do you really expect that "shame on you" cut it? This cuts it.

    It supports Obama saying that (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    he has traveled to foreign countries. It should be in his favor, then -- so why the concern from the Obama camp?

    Yes, it is so funny (1.00 / 0) (#166)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    Barack Osama Bin Laden....

    I used to respect Hillary.  You know, part of me hopes Hillary wins the nomination dirty like this, and then goes down to humiliating defeat in the general....Then we would never have to have her realism foisted on us again....

    So, Hillary found her Willie Horton ad....Good for her....


    And again ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    it's not photo-shopped.  It's an actual picture that Obama took while he was a Senator.  It's not like it's some ginned up thing, or ancient relic.

    I ask AGAIN (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    What would be the reason for the Clinton campaign to distribute this?  

    It's a pretty simple question.


    They would have no reason that's why I am (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    suspicious of the Indignation from Josh and the Obama Camp.

    Who cares? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    Either you're actually scared that your candidate is so weak he cannot survive one "silly picture," or you're just creating faux outrage.

    Neither attitude inspires much confidence in Obama as a GE candidate.

    None of this will work against Republicans.


    Kenyan picture (none / 0) (#37)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    I am wondering why the Obama camp responded as they did to this picture coming out?  There have been numerous "rumors" of his Muslim ties for months now.  They should have been able to use this picture to his advantage by stressing how his relations with Africa will improve America's image overseas.  He has claimed this in his speeches.
    For David Plouffe to now come out and claim that this is "shameful offensive fear-mongering" is going to get people thinking that maybe there is something "there".
    A little preparation would have gone a long way.

    Pushback for Saturday (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    The word "shameful" is key here. The Obama camp circulates (in its real sense of the word) mailers with factally untrue statements and insurance industry imagery against universal health care, to which Clinton replies, "Shame on you!"

    Two days later, Drudge publishes some nonsense about an email (as "circulation") and the Obama campaign decries it as "shameful offensive fear-mongering" (the same weekend that Kristol says Clinton should use fear).

    Now, we are supposed to believe that the Clinton campaign takes its marching orders from Bill Kristol and that Clinton campaign? Obama Rules meet Clinton Rules.... This is the cynical showmanship of a political race.


    If it was the Clinton camp... (none / 0) (#44)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    ...then all their plausible deniability on "playing the race card" just went up in smoke.

    This is pretty much a straight up "Obama's a secret Muslim" smear meme.  If Drudge has a staffer e-mail on file, that would explain the non-denial denial.

    When you're touring a foreign country, sometimes the locals give you a gift.  Sometimes it's some kind of honorary local garb.  To be a good guest, you try it on.  End of non-story.

    If it is the Clinton campaign, this smacks of desperation.  
    Does this mean if she wins next week, we're going to see months of ugly trench/gutter warfare leading up to the convention, ugly floor fights, etc., and then someone will (delusionally) think the party will somehow unite after all that?

    I would like for Drudge to release that email. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:17:17 PM EST
    ...because if any Democratic campaign is feeding stuff to Drudge, then I certainly want to know. But I refuse to take his word for it without evidence.

    What's secret? And why 'Muslim'? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    It's traditional garb, yes? Which he chose to put on, yes? Which isn't necessarily Muslim, yes?

    Why is Obama's lineage now so problematic for his supporters?

    Please explain.


    The target isn't Obama supporters... (none / 0) (#79)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    ...it's undecided low-information voters in Ohio and Texas.  Some of whom probably got one of those "Obama is a secret Muslim" e-mails.
    Some Americans do not make the fine distinctions regarding "traditional garb".  Some of them just remember that e-mail they got, see the photo and think, "hey, don't those muslim fellas wear turbans like that?"

    It also is an attempt to advance the "Obama's gonna get slaughtered by the Republican smear machine" meme.  Of course, in that respect I think it will backfire, because his team seems to be handling this fairly deftly, and Clinton's does not.


    Hey mike I would never use having a person's (none / 0) (#56)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:17:42 PM EST
    e-mail in file as prove of anything.

    If the Clinton campaign really did this (none / 0) (#61)
    by vj on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    It's just stupid and/or a sign of desperation.  

    Super Serious Question for BTD (none / 0) (#70)
    by Korha on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    Doesn't being the resident PC cop of the progressive blogosphere become a little tiring after a while?

    Just asking...

    Very (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    But it is an important issue to me.

    Evidence-based journalism is (none / 0) (#86)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    an important issue for me. NB.

    The evidence is in the non-denial (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    Sorry, the Clinton camp statements is the confirmation. I agree with Josh here.

    This is NOT Shuster being fired where Josh was irresponsible and disingenuous.


    And the header on this diary (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:45:14 PM EST
    would seem to be premature, if you are waiting for more information from the Clinton camp.

    But what are they to deny? (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    An email? What was the smear? What does circulation mean? Nothing about this is at issue other than Obama wore the traditional garb of a foreign country.

    Marshall is being disingenuous here too:

    "We held up on this because we never want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything. But I think the Clinton camp's statement speaks for itself."

    He acts as if TPM did some real reporting here, but it just waited for a response from the Clinton campaign. He applied the Clinton Rules to assign blame and the Obama Rules to defend teh movement.

    The thing about his blogging journalism on the Clintons is that he uses the tropes of journalism to create an air of credibility for TPM's opinion editorializing in their blogging.


    I gave you a reason they cannot (none / 0) (#106)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    issue a denial.
    If this were some earth-shaking slime, I'd say they have to, but this story is utterly trivial.
    The Clinton camp is playing it correctly.

    What Would A Denial Even Be (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    It looks like a tabloid printed this photo recently, it would not surprise me if a frustrated Clinton staffer pushed a copy around, maybe even to Drudge.  Or maybe not.  The campaign itself may not know and denying it could only lead to future embarrassment.  

    And thanks to Josh and folks like him, the Obama rules are in play meaning that Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for everything everyone who vaguely supports her does, while Obama is not responsible for anything anyone in his campaign does, including his campaign manager.

    Better to say, we don't know and explain why they don't think it's a big deal, than risk being called liars if it turns out a staffer was behind this.  

    If Marshall has any indication that this push was authorized by the Clinton campaign higher ups, then he should say so.  If not, then he should say that and, if he thinks that still makes Clinton responsible, then I have a number of Obama staffers who should also be fired and I eagerly await, Josh's outrage.  


    More rationalizing (none / 0) (#164)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    It would have been very easy for Maggie Williams to deny this.  "We didn't approve of this act and if a staffer did so, it was unauthorized".  Nice and easy.

    A campaign staffer is not someone who "vaguely" supports her.  It is someone who is GETTING PAID to support her.  


    Or even himself ... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    when he chooses to put on a costume.

    No they are not (none / 0) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    And there is word that a better statement may be forthcoming.

    BTD, wasabi's comment (#118) (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    is insightful. Drudge picks verbs carefully.

    Look (none / 0) (#84)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    if the picture was delivered to drudge from some Clinton staffer -- low level, high level, mid level,  who cares -- there would be a  name and email address associated with it and drudge has it.  my guess would be that HRC's campaign asked for that info (insane if they didn't), got it and issued the non-denial "denial."  

    Face it, HRC is on a downward trend and BHO is on an upward trend.  anything to take a little wind out of his sail (before TX and OH, let's  not forgot) is likely viewed as fair game.  so the idea that her camp is behind it is not absurd and her camp's non-denial denial does nothing but make them look guilty.  not very good getting out there in front of the story now, is it?

    Why is it okay to guess the very worst... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:30:31 PM EST
    ...about Hillary, that's what I want to know. Okay it's your guess but you have no evidence. I could guess all I want to why Obama's flyers are so Harry and Louise-like. But a) I can't prove it and b) I don't try to convince others that its true because of a guess.

    No, it's not my guess (none / 0) (#160)
    by po on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    it's based on what's been reported and her camp's non-denial denial.  I don't expect the worst from anyone.  That's why I'm frequently disappointed.  But that aside, all I said was that info linking or not linking Drudge's claims to the clinton camp exists in the email itself, Clinton's camp has probably seen the "evidence" and issued what some rather respectable HRC supporters feel was a non-denial denial and called her on it.  That's it.  I don't know who did it.  Nor do I care.  

    Why I like them both more when they're debating (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM EST
    Each of their personalities, while having flaws and sterling qualities, and their respective accomplishments are both impressive. I have no doubt that both are committed and righteous to the task ahead.

    I'd be proud to see either one in office but right now am leaning more towards HRC because she's battle-tested, whereas he seems to get personally offended by attacks which, frankly, are laughably mild in the context of bigotry in the name of fear-mongering that has typified Bush - Rovian style "just politics" (snarfle snarfle snarfle).

    Their respective campaigns, however, are doing what they do: playing hardball and hitting or whiffing in that regard in the Rove era. Just because that [expletive deleted] has "retired" from politics doesn't mean he's gone away.

    For my satisfaction in that regard, he'd have to be blasted into outer space or snuggly belted into a shuttle aimed into the earth's core.

    IF (none / 0) (#93)
    by Claw on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    If the Clinton campaign is circulating this it's really awful.  I wanted to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt with his Jesse Jackson remarks but this would go waaaay beyond the pale.  
    I wonder if she'll start mispronouncing his name...maybe telling people he's Muslim...maybe saying he was educated in a terror school in the Phillipines.  IF this was her camp (big if) she's switched over to the Fox News playbook.

    Why exactly is this (none / 0) (#133)
    by JohnS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:35:32 PM EST
    "way beyond the pale?"

    Because (none / 0) (#174)
    by Claw on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:48:58 PM EST
    Assuming it did come from HRC--and I'm still not sure it did--it's an attempt to use race and religion to score points in TX and OH.  Not okay in my book.

    BTD has earned even more of my respect (none / 0) (#159)
    by Baal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    for condemning this tactic.  

    Not me, as the header does more (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    than condemning it, with which I agree. But it allots blame and "shame" without sufficient evidence, while awaiting more information, etc. And I've just seen too much of Rovian tactics to not wonder if, on this significant day for Clinton, this isn't a tactic to derail her campaign's focus -- and that is not saying it is a tactic by the Obama camp. But Drudge has had fun mixing it up before, and see wasabi's post above, #118, on the interesting verb choice by Drudge.

    I am awaiting more information BECAUSE (none / 0) (#183)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM EST
    I am led to believe that more will be forthcoming. When I wrote my post, there was no indication that anything further would be said.

    Thank you BTD! (none / 0) (#169)
    by Independence33 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:46:29 PM EST
    Not for agreeing with me but for at least taking a stand one way or the other. This was a deliberate attempt by someone in the Clinton campaign to get Drudge to publish this photo. Im not saying it was Hillary herself or anyone high up in the ranks but it was done. They are not distancing themselves at all from this and are in fact trying to defend the use of the photo. Of course I dont find it offensive at all but I also have a small amount of common sense. This is not the case for all voters and def. not for those  who visit Drudge and live by his every word. Any small linkage to an Islamic tradition will be viewed as further proof of his "closet islamism" and just add fuel to the stupidity fire that has been spreading like crazy throughout the internet. I have discussed with otherwise intelligent people at my work(which happens to be school) and other places and the fact that Obama is a muslim has come up every time. The Clinton campaign knows this and is perpetuating this. I dont want to speak for Obama but I have yet to see him campaigning as the "black candidate" and Im sure he would like to be seen as the African-American that he is and not just African. This is not running away from his heritage and I dont see how he is trying to have it both ways like some have commented.

    Deliberate attempt (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    How do you know this is a deliberate attemt by the Clinton campaing?  Drudge said he "obtained" a staffer e-mail, not "received" a staffer e-mail.

    Ummmm (none / 0) (#221)
    by kmblue on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:16:05 PM EST
    "This was a deliberate attempt by someone in the Clinton campaign to get Drudge to publish this photo."

    I have not yet seen any proof of this.  Got a link?


    Obama Campaign: Not Ready for Prime Time (none / 0) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    This is such an old political tactic, whoever released it, if the Obama campaign cannot handle it, they're not ready for the GE.

    This is another test of Obama's ability to handle adversity.  And today he and his campaign failed the test.

    And if this photo is truly damaging, and it shouldn't be, they gave it ten times the exposure that it otherwise would have gotten.

    This is plain silly (none / 0) (#187)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:55:10 PM EST
    How did the Obama campaign fail today?  A single hostile comment from David Plouffe equates to not handling adversity?

    They made ... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    a non-issue into an issue.  That's failing in politics.

    Are you new this stuff?


    Right (none / 0) (#200)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    He should just ignore the whole "Obama is a crypto-Muslim" attack line.  Cause there is no way that will gain any traction in this country.

    Oh, god ... (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    grow a skin.

    He hardly looks like a "crypto-muslim" in the picture.  He just looks like a kid dressing up for Show and Tell.  It doesn't even look like he knows how to wear the garb.

    It's just a silly picture, and should be treated as such.


    a small subset of Hillary folks (none / 0) (#197)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM EST
    Like to have it both ways.  First they say "Obama's too nice!  He'll never fight the Republicans!"  Then when he does fight back they say "He's too thin-skinned!"

    Fortunately only relatively few display this silliness.


    TPM and Drudge Report (none / 0) (#190)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    I think it is funny that TPM has a big Drudge Report image on their site. Marshall already quotes Poltico (Drudge-lite) quite often on Clinton news.

    Now, he is just going right to the source!

    There's 2 Obama's (none / 0) (#192)
    by Sunshine on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Obama dresses to get favor from one segment of the population and complains when the other side mentions it..  He accepts Farrakhan's endorsement by not disavowing in the black community distanting himself otherwise...  What is he for and what is he against?  

    Liberal blogosphere falls into Drudge's trap (none / 0) (#208)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    This does not surprise me.  Drudge "rules our world" and apparently that even includes Big Tent Democrat's tent.

    I'll use John McCain's line when confronting shoddy journalism: "I'm disappointed."

    Comments are now closed (none / 0) (#215)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    Further developments will be discussed in a separate post.

    Obama flap (none / 0) (#226)
    by TGood on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    It would serve Obama well to have someone in his corner send out that photo. That would keep up the drumbeat to keep him "untouchable" and the object of all sympathy.

    Obama is being backed by a special interest  group,LaRaza, that specializes in race baiting to promote open borders, and Obama gave a veiled promise to even end the ICE raids when elected. Farrakhan wants Obama elected because he believes Obama will put "whites" in their place.

    If Hillary Clinton or any other person were being backed by these special interest people , there would be an uproar. Obama gets a pass.

    No man or woman who believes our immigration laws should be virtually done away with are neither loyal Americans or fit to lead this country.

    It's time for a change alright but these two are missing the boat. How about Americans represented first for a CHANGE? That would be unique.